This is way more than a name change, but I also this the name change will actually prove quite important for this product. Branding and naming matter. If iPhone was called the TX75LL390 it wound't have seemed anywhere near as accessible to consumers.

“By the summer of 2012, the majority of the televisions you see in stores will have Google TV embedded in it,” Schmidt said on stage at the Le Web conference.

I'm surprised that nobody has commented yet that Google's action here is a page from Microsoft's strategy book:

Quote:

Don't have a product that people actually want? Competitor just put something out the door that makes your offerings look like crap?

Pre-announce vapor to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt!

You don't need to actually ship something that does what your competitor does cheaper, faster, and better! You just need to say that you will be shipping it Real Soon Now™! This will cause prospective buyers of your competitors' products to say "I could get that, OR I could wait for the better version from Microsoft Google!"

All it takes is a well-timed and well-worded press release to freeze the market, flushing your competitor's hopes down a swirling drain pipe! Use your massive market advantage and army of fanboys to crush the sales of your competitor's actual product!

This is clearly a me-too attempt to spread FUD. At least, that's what it appears to be until Google shows themselves even slightly competent at making a TV-attached content delivery device that people actually want.

On election night in 2012, did anyone watch Karl Rove melt down when Ohio was called for Obama? Rove had spent so long in a hermetically-sealed bubble, listening to and perpetuating a fallacious feedback loop which said that Romney was going to win, that he just couldn't accept what he was hearing. The real-world evidence didn't fit into his all-encompassing worldview, so he simply chose to reject that evidence for as long as possible in order to maintain the delusion.

The only difference between DED and Karl Rove is that Rove eventually had to accept that Obama won, whereas for DED ignorance continues to be bliss.

On election night in 2012, did anyone watch Karl Rove melt down when Ohio was called for Obama? Rove had spent so long in a hermetically-sealed bubble, listening to and perpetuating a fallacious feedback loop which said that Romney was going to win, that he just couldn't accept what he was hearing. The real-world evidence didn't fit into his all-encompassing worldview, so he simply chose to reject that evidence for as long as possible in order to maintain the delusion.

The only difference between DED and Karl Rove is that Rove eventually had to accept that Obama won, whereas for DED ignorance continues to be bliss.

Okay, so they are either completely incompetent when it comes to securing confidential unreleased product information, or they are spreading FUD about their prime competition.

You pick.

Big enterprises like Google, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and others can hardly prevent any rumor from leaking. You got Android TV and the new 5" iPhone 6. Are they both FUD? We don't know if it's true or not until either a public statement is made, or rumors get multiple confirmations from various sources.

Big enterprises like Google, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and others can hardly prevent any rumor from leaking. You got Android TV and the new 5" iPhone 6. Are they both FUD? We don't know if it's true or not until either a public statement is made, or rumors get multiple confirmations from various sources.

difference is one was a rumor based off Asian supply chain and the other was actual screen shots of software UI. I have a hard time believing an employee at Google leaked these screenshots to The Verge without higher ups knowing about it. Unless they were leaked by whichever OEM is making the STB, which I suppose is possible.

It's understandable why Gogole would ditch GoogleTV. They created a horrible product and they are now scaling it back to a more realistic concept with a new name, but Chromecast has a modicum of success so why create this competitor to it. We know that Chromecast is really built from Android, not Chrome OS, so what is the key difference here? The HW? I don't get how this is going to help Chromecast going forward unless they are also ditching it in favour of Android TV.

I agree. Neither product is for me, but why have Chromecast and Android TV???

Boom what? That Google leaked this right after Amazon announced their box? That the UI looks like Xbox? That's it's basically just copying what every other STB/console device does? Honestly I'd be curious to know how many people come home at night and curse their TV interface. It seems tech companies these days are tripping all over each other trying to find what the next big thing is. Yet none of them are doing anything that makes you go WOW or holy shit. It's all variants of the same things.

Though now that we're getting notifications on our phone, wrist and TV I expect Google to design a bathroom mirror that displays notifications. and maybe showers and refrigerators too. Make sure every minute of the day wherever you are you get notifications.

This leak comes off as Microsoftesque FUD. But, the point here is that neither Amazon and Google (if this Android TV rumor is true) have truly moved the needle and disrupted the market if their new devices do not also come with new and expanded content deals. It's just more engineering solutions that address only a fragment of the overall picture.

Even with nearly four decades of TV time shifting devices (and media players, on-demand programs, and now networked video on mobile devices), over 70% of TV viewing time remains with live broadcasts. The true innovation in TV won't happen until a new device/service can seamlessly integrate live TV with other on-demand, PPV, and purchased content.

To me, the rumors of Apple negotiating with TWC and now Comcast are far more significant than someone announcing yet another UI and bunch of new features for a set-top box. Tech writers have chimed on and on about cord cutting for over a decade now, yet the pay TV industry only lost a net 100,000 U.S. subscribers last year (most articles talking about the cable subscription losses neglect to mention the nearly identical gains with satellite and IPTV/fiber TV subscriptions). If Apple can negotiate a meaningful content deal and deploy it with a new Apple TV device, that would truly address the big picture and potentially impact the market in a big way.

Simple: nothing. Not only do they target separate market segments with separate price points ($35 versus $99) but they are actually different devices. Chromecast is a mirroring device that cannot operate independently of a smartphone, tablet or PC with a Chrome browser. It is basically the TV equivalent of a smart watch, which - apart from its ability to tell time - is useless unless it is tethered to a smart phone.

Meanwhile, Google TV is a standalone device that is a competitor for Apple TV, Roku 3 and Fire TV (except that this leak doesn't mention any gaming). Basically, asking why Google is offering two similar devices (that truthfully aren't that similar) is dumb: the equivalent of asking why Apple offers both I-Pads and MacBooks. If anything, that question should be asked of Roku, who offers both set top boxes like Apple TV and streaming sticks like Chromecast. The answer: both Apple TV and Chromecast are selling, so Roku needs to have a competitor with both. (And yes, Roku coming out with a streaming stick disproves any notion that Chromecast is a failure that Google is about to dump. Especially since Roku already offered a streaming stick that did not sell before Chromecast, and had to quickly redesign it to make it cheaper and more like Chromecast).

And for the people who say that Fire TV did not move the needle: wrong. Fire TV became the biggest selling electronics item on Amazon the day that it launched. Also, Google sort of knows what goes on at Amazon and vice versa, so they began working on their response as soon as they found out what Amazon is planning (despite Amazon's best attempts to throw everyone off track by making everyone believe that they were going to create another dongle like Chromecast). They knew that Amazon had a successful product on their hands, which was why they leaked this within a few days of Fire TV's launch. Their goal is to get people who have already invested in the Google ecosystem by way of either a Nexus, Google Play, ChromeOS or Samsung device not to buy Fire TV but instead to wait a few months on their device. Since Fire TV's cost is not insignificant ($100 plus $40 for a controller) it will be a compelling pitch.

For the pitch to actually work, though, Android TV will have to do two things.

1. Android TV will have to accommodate gaming. Roku 3 did the gaming first, but they did it badly. Chromecast was working on gaming capabilities, but they released the device before that portion was ready in order to try to beat Amazon's offering to market, because Amazon was supposed to launch theirs for Christmas, so it isn't ready yet beyond a few games with limited capabilities that stink. But the Fire TV is so serious about gaming that they put a USB port on the device so it can be used to store an unlimited amount of games (not to mention movies and music).

2. Android TV will have to interoperate and integrate with Chromecast in some way. If it does not, it will alienate people who bought the things (indeed some people bought several). The best bet would be if Android TV is able to stream individual content to each individual Chromecast unit instead of simply mirroring the content to all 4. That would give people an incentive to continue to buy Chromecasts: Android TV for the "main" TV (or not necessarily connected to a TV at all but acting as a streaming media router) and Chromecasts for the others.

Folks are talking about the need to support live TV i.e. broadcast and cable, for the set top boxes to compete with or become cable boxes, and are hoping that such is the "big thing" that Apple TV will offer that the others won't.

The problem with that: it does not require extra hardware. The cable companies can already use the Internet to turn an Apple TV, Roku or even a PC into a cable box. The hardware already exists and the software to support it does also. What cable or satellite company doesn't already have apps that allows you to watch their live TV on a smartphone or tablet? I know DirecTV does. Making a version of those apps that would work on Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV or Google TV/Chromecast would take a month, tops. The only reason why it has not happened yet is because it is not in the interests of the cable companies to do so. How does making Comcast cable just another app on the Apple TV set top box to compete with Netflix, Hulu Plus, ITunes etc. benefit Comcast's business model? It doesn't. It benefits Comcast to sell you their own cable box hardware (on which they make a lot of money by the way) and force you to turn off your Apple TV and turn on their cable box.

It especially is not in Comcast's interests for an Apple TV user (or similar product from Google, Amazon or whoever) to be able to buy a set top box and use it to stream cable from a Comcast competitor like Charter or Cox in what is (or was!) an area where Comcast is the exclusive provider. Would Comcast allow that to happen if they also happen to be your Internet provider? Think about that for a second. All the more reason why discussions between Apple and Comcast never got past the discussion phase. If Comcast locks in Apple TV, then Google's obvious response would be to allow you to choose your own cable provider with their box.

In any event, this shows that Google's primary competition is not Apple but Amazon. Instead of creating a license agreement with Google for Android like Samsung and other companies, Amazon forked their own to make a competing line of products. Their Kindles directly compete with Amazon tablets, now their Fire TV blows their Chromecast out of the water, and Amazon is coming out with a Kindle phone later this year. Oh yeah, and there is this little thing about the cloud, where Amazon is #1 and Google is #2.

So they will be able to run Google Play phones and tablets, Google TV, Chromecast, the range of Android powered smart appliances that Google has in the pipeline etc. all on their own broadband and wireless networks, which would allow them to make an end run around the coming Comcast-Time Warner cable and Internet hegemony and of course point consumers and enterprise customers to the Google cloud, and in that way giving them a competitive leg up on Microsoft and Amazon (their true rivals, not so much Apple).

Hmmm ... wonder what DED and the Google/Android bashers would have to say about that development. It will be much harder, after all, to Google Internet "a stolen product" ...

I thought the Google TV brand was dead. So it's not just the Chromecast HW/SW combo and Android TV, but also Google TV? You don't find that to be a convoluted product lineup?

Quote:

And for the people who say that Fire TV did not move the needle: wrong. Fire TV became the biggest selling electronics item on Amazon the day that it launched.

What does that prove? Where else can you buy the FireTV outside of Amazon's own website and it's brand new. The Kindle Fires top the list on Amazon even though the iPad kills them in unit sales. What exactly did you think that proved?

PS: The iPad is the best selling tablet on Apple's website.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Sony's Google TV comes with a remote that the back is a keyboard and the front has a touch pad. Also they can easily release an Apple TV app to control the browser. They already have one for iPad and is beautiful.

Sony's Google TV comes with a remote that the back is a keyboard and the front has a touch pad. Also they can easily release an Apple TV app to control the browser. They already have one for iPad and is beautiful.

So you're OK with a iOS app that can be used as a remote control for a browser on the Apple TV?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Google's TV strategy may be complex and a bit messy at this point, but there is no denying Google is a monster competitor for Apple.

Apple used to control the smart phone and tablet markets. Now Apple is a minority player, and a shrinking one internationally, in both of those markets.

Of course, that's not 100% due to Google, but Google is a primary reason or at least a primary part of the reason that iOS no longer dominates any market in which it competes.

I personally would love to see Apple triumph in TV, but recent history doesn't suggest that Apple can fend off its more nimble and hasty competitors that well especially on a global level.

So basically Apple controlled a market that was very small and once it exploded (mostly due to the low end and cheap white box devices) Apple's control was no more. Since Apple only plays in the high end it's not a surprise they're a minority player in terms of global market share. But market share is not the same as install base and certainly not the same as profit share.

Google will go nowhere with this. They don't have anywhere near the pull Apple has with content providers, and even Apple (as far as we know) hasn't had success in changing how providers distribute their content. Apple completely dwarfs Google in terms of how much content they currently sell and Apples customer base of people willing to spend money also dwarfs Googles.

All Google can do is release a product that's similar to Apple TV/Roku/Amazon Fire - a set top box that doesn't really differentiate itself from all the others except for the fact Google is selling it.

Apple is probably the only one with the pull to get the providers to change their paradigm of content distribution. And if they do, then we'll see a real game changer in terms of how we watch TV.

And for the people who say that Fire TV did not move the needle: wrong. Fire TV became the biggest selling electronics item on Amazon the day that it launched.

Until you have a device or a selection of services that address the 100+ million U.S. households that watch pay TV on set-top boxes provided by their service provider, fireTV does not move anything -- needles, markets, or whatever. Even if the device actually moves tens of millions of units, it does not change anything unless it also access the content that people actually watch, which is live TV.

Quote:

Folks are talking about the need to support live TV i.e. broadcast and cable, for the set top boxes to compete with or become cable boxes, and are hoping that such is the "big thing" that Apple TV will offer that the others won't.

The problem with that: it does not require extra hardware. The cable companies can already use the Internet to turn an Apple TV, Roku or even a PC into a cable box. The hardware already exists and the software to support it does also. What cable or satellite company doesn't already have apps that allows you to watch their live TV on a smartphone or tablet? I know DirecTV does. Making a version of those apps that would work on Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV or Google TV/Chromecast would take a month, tops. The only reason why it has not happened yet is because it is not in the interests of the cable companies to do so. How does making Comcast cable just another app on the Apple TV set top box to compete with Netflix, Hulu Plus, ITunes etc. benefit Comcast's business model? It doesn't. It benefits Comcast to sell you their own cable box hardware (on which they make a lot of money by the way) and force you to turn off your Apple TV and turn on their cable box.

Live TV though is the missing feature that none of the other set-top boxes out there address. Apple would be negotiating with Comcast for exactly that content. Where Apple TV can provide a compelling product is through seamless integration with iTunes and all the other services that currently exist as walled off fiefdoms. All those content providers that currently exist as separate "channels" or apps? If Apple (or somebody else) can integrate everything together into a unified programming grid with a single point-of-payment for subscriptions, PPV, and purchased content, that goes much further than any of the current options, and would have broader appeal to the mass market. That's not fancy hardware, specs, or features. It's taking what consumers already do, and making it easier to access and pay for.

Quote:

It especially is not in Comcast's interests for an Apple TV user (or similar product from Google, Amazon or whoever) to be able to buy a set top box and use it to stream cable from a Comcast competitor like Charter or Cox in what is (or was!) an area where Comcast is the exclusive provider. Would Comcast allow that to happen if they also happen to be your Internet provider? Think about that for a second. All the more reason why discussions between Apple and Comcast never got past the discussion phase. If Comcast locks in Apple TV, then Google's obvious response would be to allow you to choose your own cable provider with their box.

Where are the rumors of Google negotiating any content deals to go with this new Android TV platform? And what makes you think that Apple does not also have talks going with other providers? Comcast just happens to be the largest pay TV provider that also controls a broadcast network, one of the major movie studios, the largest music label in the world, and multiple regional sports networks.

As I said before, content is king. Negotiating for live TV rights requires the heaviest lifting because of all the carriage rights and multi-billion dollar lock ins that the providers currently pay for. They're not going to grant access without their cut, since they actually pay for it. The original Google TV platform tried to get around this by scraping the broadcasters' web feeds without paying anything, and the broadcasters responded by blocking Google TV. Would Google be willing to enter into a content deal with a cable company, given their history of promoting "free" content?

So they will be able to run Google Play phones and tablets, Google TV, Chromecast, the range of Android powered smart appliances that Google has in the pipeline etc. all on their own broadband and wireless networks, which would allow them to make an end run around the coming Comcast-Time Warner cable and Internet hegemony and of course point consumers and enterprise customers to the Google cloud, and in that way giving them a competitive leg up on Microsoft and Amazon (their true rivals, not so much Apple).

And again, how do hey do an "end run around" when they don't control the content that consumers actually watch?

So basically Apple controlled a market that was very small and once it exploded (mostly due to the low end and cheap white box devices) Apple's control was no more. Since Apple only plays in the high end it's not a surprise they're a minority player in terms of global market share. But market share is not the same as install base and certainly not the same as profit share.

2013. 121 Million Android tablets sold. 70 Million iPads sold.

The year before it was 53 Million Android tablets. 61 Million iPads.

Apple wasn't just selling the high end iPads. It was selling all levels of tablets, because it was the only game.

I personally see the validity of your point, however, it doesn't overcome the stunning reversal in 2013 in the worldwide tablet market. Android gained in such a huge way in 2013.

I hope Apple figures out some way to bounce back or at least to maintain.

But if this trend continues, 2014 could be 80 Million iPads sold and 250 Million Android tablets.

I'm not a business dude, but that just can't be a good thing. I hope Apple reverses or slows this trend!

Bullshit! Show me the tablets under $100 from Apple? I can show you hundreds of here on Azazon and in B&M stores like drugs stores. Drug stores!

If these Android tablets are such I a dominate force then where is the data from apps and website analytics that support it?

He does have a point. Since Apple was the only game for a while then the cheapest (in price) option would be the low end, but not necessarily because it's in any way worse than the high end. In this instance price is the only determining factor. Now that all these crappy drug store tablets have emerged they've lowered the bar for low end in price and build quality.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

He does have a point. Since Apple was the only game for a while then the cheapest (in price) option would be the low end, but not necessarily because it's in any way worse than the high end. In this instance price is the only determining factor. Now that all these crappy drug store tablets have emerged they've lowered the bar for low end in price and build quality.

1) jJust because the iPad sold for half at what the "experts" were expecting doesn't mean it was ever low-end.

2) Apple was never the only game in town. Tablets were on the market 2 decades before the iPad hit the shelves and even then there were cheap, crappy tablets installed with Android 1.x versions hitting the market.

1) jJust because the iPad sold for half at what the "experts" were expecting doesn't mean it was ever low-end.

2) Apple was never the only game in town. Tablets were on the market 2 decades before the iPad hit the shelves and even then there were cheap, crappy tablets installed with Android 1.x versions hitting the market.

I know that they weren't the only tablet available, but most people don't know tablets existed before the iPad. Low end has become synonymous with cheap crap, but in the purest definition of the saying it's just the lowest end. A airplane that's 35,000 feet in the air and on a incline has one end that's lower than the other, so the airplane has a low end. It's all a matter of reference.

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX